John Doe and Janet Doe v. Young Men's Christian Association of the Suncoast, Inc.; Delonyx Cortez; Linda Penn; Play Space Services, Inc.; M.D.K.; and C.K.

Summary

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reviewed the dismissal with prejudice of the parents' individual claims arising from an incident involving their three-year-old daughter at a YMCA Kids Zone. The court held that the parents should have been allowed to amend their loss of filial consortium and breach of contract claims, but affirmed with-prejudice dismissal of their breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Holdings

1. The trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the loss of filial consortium and breach of contract claims with prejudice because those claims had not been previously challenged in a manner that constituted abuse of the privilege to amend, amendment would not prejudice the defendants, and amendment was not shown to be futile.
2. The parents could not state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the YMCA or its employees because the alleged facts did not establish a fiduciary relationship between the parents and defendants.
3. The parents failed to state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and dismissal with prejudice was proper after their third attempt to plead those claims.
4. The parents' negligent infliction of emotional distress claims were barred because they did not contemporaneously perceive or otherwise become involved in the incident causing the alleged injury to their daughter.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the parents' loss of filial consortium and breach of contract claims with prejudice.
2. Whether the parents could state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the YMCA and its employees.
3. Whether the parents stated claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the incident involving their daughter and the YMCA's postincident conduct.
4. Whether the parents' negligent infliction of emotional distress claims were barred by Florida's impact rule because they did not contemporaneously perceive the incident.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded